Why don't the means justify the ends?

[bloke916]

I completely agree with this, which makes me question how can a war be justified?

i heard the greatest good should not be pursued at the cost of even the tiniest evil. save the world if you just commit a tiny sin? must say no.

 

[Eucharisted]

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

Sounds like a scene from the Saw movies.

In the example you give, the means do not justify the ends. I would die rather than murder someone.

The means never justify the ends, no matter the circumstances.

 

[centurion210]

Okay, what’s wrong with trying to overpower the terrorist? If I die, I am laying down my life for my fellow man. If I have to kill him to free the hostages, I am not committing a sin because my intention is to free the hostages. His death would not be my intention. The commandment really says “thou shalt not murder”.

God does not expect society to sit by and let innocent people be slaughtered by evil entities. Society has a right and an obligation to protect its citizens. It gets a lot deeper, but that’s kind of what the “just war” principle is all about.

 

[Lainey63]

Okay, what’s wrong with trying to overpower the terrorist? If I die, I am laying down my life for my fellow man. If I have to kill him to free the hostages, I am not committing a sin because my intention is to free the hostages. His death would not be my intention. The commandment really says “thou shalt not murder”.

God does not expect society to sit by and let innocent people be slaughtered by evil entities. Society has a right and an obligation to protect its citizens. It gets a lot deeper, but that’s kind of what the “just war” principle is all about.

Hey! I’m changing my answer and I am in total agreement with you Centurion…and quite frankly-this thought occured to me right after my first post-- 1 terrorist and 10 people (Americans) locked in one room guess whose leaving in a body bag. My conscience wouldn’t allow me to do nothing…that would be the sin.

 

[Ginger2]

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

The ends don’t justify the means first, because we can’t see into the future to know what the end result will be. You, in your twisted and limited human understanding, think you are doing “good” by choosing the lesser of two evils. You murder one person believing 10 others will be saved…

but after you murder the one, the terrorists laugh in your face and murder the ten themselves.

What if the marines rescued the entire group of hostages minutes after you murdered the one?

By trying to do good thru doing evil, you are the cause of an unnecessary death.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Hey! I’m changing my answer and I am in total agreement with you Centurion…and quite frankly-this thought occured to me right after my first post-- 1 terrorist and 10 people (Americans) locked in one room guess whose leaving in a body bag. My conscience wouldn’t allow me to do nothing…that would be the sin.

You guys are over simplifying.

There is not always an easy or obvious solution. You cannot depend on other people to over-come their fear and take action. What if the other hostages are preschoolers?

The question is really about why a lesser sin to prevent a greater evil is wrong - IF something good comes of it.

Which is why I pointed out we have no control over the outcome - the final results.

If we take a coat from the library because we can’t think of any other way to get a coat, we may be taking it from a person who only went inside to warm up. Now that person is in the same situation we were in - or worse. Maybe all the money that person had was in the coat pocket and now that person will have no way to buy food for their young children. Or maybe that person was taking medicine to a spouse and has no means to buy more meds.

The coat you took may have caused someone’s death.

Our lesser sin may have a snowball effect of ill-consequences.

Ginger

 

[centurion210]

In my case, I don’t know what the other hostages would do. I’m just saying that I would feel justified to do something. The results would be in the hands of God. I believe it was Mother Teresa who said that we are not always called to be successful, but faithful. We should always remember that when we do the right thing God will take care of the rest. Too often we worry about death. Death is certainly not the worst thing that can happen to us.

Ginger, you are correct when you say that we don’t know what the snowball effect might be for a seemingly "good"sin. That’s why relativism is such a risky path.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

Once you set your own idea of what is moral independent of God’s will, then you have essentially set yourself up to being your own god with your own set of rules. The church’s “laws” are God’s laws. The Ten Commandments still apply.

If we are looking for loopholes in the commandments of God we’ll find them. The question we need to ask is why are we seeking the loopholes.

You are presuming that we have no choices even in this situation. We do. The moral choice would be to either do nothing but sit there and let the terrorist make the immoral choice or to rush the terrorist in an attempt to save some.

Either way, the terrorist is going to probably kill everyone anyway. He just wants you to go to hell with him. In the end, God is in control. If you die, you can at least die without murder on your conscience.

Peace…

MW

 

[Ginger2]

Centurion210,

I couldn’t agree more. We are called to act, and to act righteously.

2 Cor 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

If we are truly representatives for Christ, all we do must be fitting such a position and never bring reproach to the Lord’s name.

2 Samuel 12:14 because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,…

 

[johnnydigit]

I completely agree with this, which makes me question how can a war be justified?

i’m pretty sure that you should not murder 1 if the terrorist says he’ll let 10 live. yet i don’t know how to answer the “just war” question.

perhaps because the enemy soldiers are shooting right at people, whereas the terrorist is just asking you to kill an innocent person? maybe if the terrorist lunged at the 10 people, you could defend them by disabling him lethally. maybe even if he didn’t lunge but was distracted, you could disable him, as a police officer would…

 

[jman507]

How about this one, you are locking down and securing a hospital. There is a person infected with a disease such as small pox. There is one unsecured door left as you turn the corner, you see the guy going to enter, where he could infect the patients and staff inside. A massive outbreak that could very well kill a lot of people. You tell him to stop. He says, he needs help, and keeps walking towards the door. You pull out your gun you have as the security officer. You tell him to walk no further or you’ll shoot. He ignores you. Your too far away to from him to stop him from any other way other than to shoot. What do you do?

 

[Ginger2]

I completely agree with this, which makes me question how can a war be justified?

Sitting by and doing nothing to stop evil is also a sin.

Are we justified in going to war to free a nation whose people are being brutalized tortured and murdered under an insane “leader”.

Unfortunately we usually turn our heads the other way until our “interests” are being threatened.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sitting by and doing nothing to stop evil is also a sin.

Are we justified in going to war to free a nation whose people are being brutalized tortured and murdered under an insane “leader”.

Unfortunately we usually turn our heads the other way until our “interests” are being threatened.

Are you speaking of Getmo?

 

[Ginger2]

bloke916.

He/she asked how war can be justified.

My view is murder is never justified, but killing in certain instances is.

A war to free people from horrendous actions being perpetrated is just. It is a sin to sit back and do nothing when we can stop injustice and evil.

Self-defense is not murder, either. It is self-preservation.

 

[centurion210]

Jman,

the way you present it; you let the man in and help him. He is sick and needs help. It is not his intention, at least the way you tell it, to hurt anyone. It may be difficult, but we are called to live the gospel; the Lord will take care of the rest.

 

[jman507]

Jman,

the way you present it; you let the man in and help him. He is sick and needs help. It is not his intention, at least the way you tell it, to hurt anyone. It may be difficult, but we are called to live the gospel; the Lord will take care of the rest.

To that point you break what may be called a “reverse quarantine” and let the whole populous inside be exposed?

 

[Ginger2]

It’s a hospital!!! You let the guy in. Tell him you’ll call for help on your walky/talky or whatever they use now-a-days. and keep him at the door waiting for help. When help comes he will be escorted to a quarantined section.

 

[jman507]

It’s a hospital!!! You let the guy in. Tell him you’ll call for help on your walky/talky or whatever they use now-a-days. and keep him at the door waiting for help. When help comes he will be escorted to a quarantined section.

The situation is compromise the “reverse quarantine” and let an infection spread inside the locked down area, or stop the infected person before that can happen with the gun. I’m trying to cut things down to as few as variables as possible, in order to try to make it a situation of one innocent person vs. lots of innocent people.

Certainly if you have a way to get the person isolated, staff using proper BSI techniques to avoid exposure, one should do that. In this situation though, the is a break down in the lock-down protocol that could compromise the safety of the whole hospital.

 

[Ginger2]

The situation is compromise the “reverse quarantine” and let an infection spread inside the locked down area, or stop the infected person before that can happen with the gun. I’m trying to cut things down to as few as variables as possible, in order to try to make it a situation of one innocent person vs. lots of innocent people.

Certainly if you have a way to get the person isolated, staff using proper BSI techniques to avoid exposure, one should do that. In this situation though, the is a break down in the lock-down protocol that could compromise the safety of the whole hospital.

It’s a hospital. You have to let the person in to get whatever care can be provided.

Your question could be turned around to ensure no one leaves the hospital because even those not showing symptoms or testing negative could still be infected, in which case your man would be warned and if not infected would immediately leave or if infected would state so and be admitted.

If he were not infected, but …let’s say shot…he would still be admitted rather than letting him bleed to death. At which point he could not leave until the quarantine was lifted.

I think we are discovering murder is never acceptable and killing is under certain circumstances which are outlined in Scriptures.

 

[Ginger2]

In your scenario, the person, once he enters would be kept inside - not shot.

At that point he would be isolated from the other patients - all who came in contact with him would share this isolation.

BUT the lock down would now be two-ways. Keep others out and hope the one inside does not effect other patients,

And keep everyone inside so as to keep them from being infected by those outside.